ghidriff_job_cancel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a side effect—killing the ghidriff process—which goes beyond merely saying 'cancel'. However, it does not address permission requirements, reversibility of the action, or behavior when the job is not running or the job_id is invalid, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Cancel a running diff job') and then adds a relevant behavioral detail ('kill its ghidriff process') without redundancy. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simple scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter and an existing output schema—the description covers the essential action and side effect well. It could mention error cases or the need for a running job, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of cancellation make these minor omissions. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter job_id already has a meaningful description: 'Job id to cancel.' The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, such as format or source, so the baseline of 3 applies without any extra semantic contribution.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Cancel' and identifies the resource as 'a running diff job', then adds a distinctive behavioral detail ('kill its ghidriff process') that sets it apart from read-only siblings like ghidriff_job_status and ghidriff_job_result. An agent can immediately understand the tool's core function without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: call this tool when you want to stop a running diff job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the job being in progress or where to obtain the job_id from sibling tools like ghidriff_jobs. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.